008
Ramesses Exhibit
Pharaoh in Memphis—Tennessee, That Is
What’s in a name? Suppose Memphis, Tennessee, had been called Vienna, Tennessee, or Lachish, Tennessee?
Things would have been very different. For one, the “Ramesses the Great” exhibit would never have come to Memphis. This stunning collection of over 70 pieces from the Egyptian Museum in Cairo includes everything from a 19-pound gold necklace to colorful funerary scenes painted on a Canopic chest.
The star of the show, however, is a colossal statue of Ramesses himself, 27 ½ feet tall and weighing 47 tons. For thousands of years, it had lain in pieces at Memphis on the Nile, the traditional capital of Egypt. At a cost of more than $100,000, the statue was restored and brought to Memphis on the Mississippi for this exhibit.
The four-and-a-half-month exhibit, which opened April 15, attracted advance sales of over 400,000. By the time the show closes on August 31, probably more than 500,000 people will have seen it.
Scholars too were attracted. Memphis State University’s Institute of Egyptian Art and Archaeology—which was itself created because the city on the Mississippi happened to be called Memphis—held a series of programs. The American Research Center of Egypt held its annual meeting in Memphis (Tennessee, that is).
And the Near East Archaeological Society (NEAS) mounted a three-day colloquium of scholarly talks entitled “Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?”
World-renowned scholars addressed the Exodus symposium. From England came Kenneth Kitchen and John Bimson; from Israel came David Ussishkin, Itzhak Beit-Arieh and Rivka Gonen; from America came J. Maxwell Miller, Cyrus Gordon and Hans Goedicke, to name just a few. Adnan Hadidi, director of Jordan’s Department of Antiquities, was also listed and pictured on the program but failed to show up.
From a scientific viewpoint, the sponsorship of the colloquium was suspect. As a condition of membership, NEAS requires execution of an oath or affirmation of faith that “the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God written and therefore inerrant in the Autographs.”
Privately, some of the scholarly participants expressed initial reservations about the auspices under which the colloquium was held. But in the event, the discussions were on the highest, impartial scientific level. And all agreed that the scholarly interchange was enormously worthwhile.
Before the colloquium, I asked James E. Powell, president of the Memphis chapter of the NEAS and principal organizer of the conference, whether the faith commitment of the Society, in effect, loaded the dice, predetermined the outcome. “No,” he said, “we’re willing to listen.”
And listen, everyone did.
The conference would have been more accurately titled “The Exodus—Whether and, If So, When?” and “The Israelite Conquest of Canaan—Whether and, If So, When?” for these were the questions most frequently addressed.
Among those who believe there was a substantial Exodus as described in the Bible, the principal question was whether it occurred in the 13th century B.C. or in the 15th century B.C., although one scholar (Emmanuel Anati, who was not present) has suggested a third millennium B.C. date. Johns Hopkins’ Egyptologist Hans Goedicke, on the other hand, argued that the Biblical account is a “literary fiction” based on events that occurred in the 15th century.
The inconclusive and sometimes conflicting evidence with regard to the Israelite conquest of Canaan further complicates matters. It is extremely difficult to support a 13th-century B.C. conquest in light of the archaeological evidence at sites like Jericho and Ai. At these sites, there were no settlements in the 13th century for the Israelites to conquer.
Trinity College’s John Bimson (whose article, “Redating the Exodus,” appears in this issue) plumped for a 15th-century Exodus and conquest. Bimson sought to identify the acknowledged destruction of Canaanite cities, at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, with the Israelite conquest. Most scholars, however, date the end of the Middle Bronze Age to the 16th century B.C., not to the 15th century. To meet this objection, Bimson would move the end of the Middle Bronze Age down a hundred years or more, to the 15th century B.C. Most scholars, however, remained unconvinced by Bimson’s argument.
Using an extremely sophisticated pottery analysis, Bryant Wood of the Toronto Baptist Seminary sought to demonstrate that at least some of the destructions at the end of the Middle Bronze Age—Jericho, for example—actually occurred in the Late Bronze Age, the period when most scholars place the emergence of Israel in Canaan. Watch for future development of this argument. It is likely to be important.
At the conclusion of the conference, Emory University’s Max Miller announced that he had become convinced both by proponents of a 13th-century Exodus and conquest and by proponents of a 15th-century Exodus and conquest: The proponents of the 13th century convinced him it couldn’t have happened in the 15th century, and the proponents of the 15th century convinced him it couldn’t have happened in the 13th century. For Miller, the Biblical accounts were traditional, folkloristic retellings with little if any historical value.
What this symposium did prove is that there is an enormous amount of material bearing on the problems of the Egyptian sojourn, the Exodus, the wilderness wandering and Israel’s emergence in Canaan. It is far too early to come to any definitive conclusions, especially because new materials and new insights are surfacing almost daily. Above all, it is far too early to stop asking questions.
At the first International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, held in Jerusalem in 1984, a few American scholars suggested that Israel’s history began only with the emergence of Israel in Canaan in about 1200 B.C.; these American scholars were apparently willing to write off everything earlier in the Biblical account as a “pious 009fraud.” This seemed to me then, and still seems, an unscholarly, unscientific approach. It cuts off debate, rather than encouraging it. It assumes, incorrectly, that the evidence is far clearer and more conclusive than, in fact, it is.
That the evidence is complex, fragmentary and inconclusive means we must continue asking questions and seeking answers. We must listen to all arguments respectfully—although we are also free to reject vehemently any or all of them.
It may seem ironic to some that this kind of open discussion and scientific debate is being encouraged and sponsored by an organization committed by faith to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Obviously, there is another debate going on in the hearts and minds of many of NEAS’s members—and leaders. It is clear that there is more than one view within NEAS itself. How is scientific objectivity to be squared with a literal interpretation of the Biblical text?—this is a question NEAS needs to address.
In any event, however, NEAS is to be congratulated for sponsoring a wide-open, scientific debate on these fascinating and important questions. Out of such discussions, new light will emerge.
New Institute
A Boost to Biblical Studies
The field of Biblical studies has gained a new institute, which will fund and administer projects in archaeology and in the investigation of the relationship between U.S. and Biblical jurisprudence. The Berkeley Institute of Bible, Archaeology and Law (BIBAL) expects ultimately to become an affiliate member of the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. In order to avoid duplication of effort, the new institute will cooperate with the Badè Institute of Biblical Archaeology.
Among Biblical’s planned activities are excavation opportunities in the Holy Land, funding of visiting professorships and of teaching fellowships in Biblical languages, creation of research grants for work within the Graduate Theological Union, publication of scholarly works and sponsorship of academic conferences.
For more information, write to ABSW/BIBAL, 2515 Hillegass Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94704.
Exhibition
“Lands of the Bible” at Tel Aviv Museum
Numerous artifacts never before seen by the public will be among 180 objects shown in “Lands of the Bible” exhibition, opening at the Tel Aviv Museum in mid-September. A monumental Hittite stela inscribed with pictograph writing, masterpieces in ivory and amber, and major objects of the Aegean and Anatolian world are some of the pieces to be exhibited for the first time.
The exhibition represents a selection from the 2,000 artifacts in Elie Borowski’s Bible Lands Collection, and it will serve as a preview for the opening of the Bible Lands Museum, now under construction in Jerusalem and scheduled for completion at the end of 1988.
Corrections
We have been informed that the photographs of the Tel Miqne (Biblical Ekron) excavation, found on the cover and in “Excavation Opportunities 1987,” BAR 13:01, were taken by the Tel Miqne-Ekron project photographer, Ilan Sztulman.
The caption for the “Dancer from Dan” in the July/August 1987 BAR (“BAR Interview: Avraham Biran—Twenty Years of Digging at Tel Dan,” BAR 13:04) should have stated that the conquest of Laish by the Israelite tribe of Dan dates approximately, to the 12th century B.C., as indicated in the text of the interview with Avraham Biran.
